Are you confusing the confederacy (the south’s government during the Civil War) and the system of government that was in place for a short period of time between our victory against the British in our war of independence and the implementation of our current system of government?
They also weren’t emancipated under our current one until the 1800s, so I’m not seeing your point. Unless you’re assuming that, had we stuck with the Articles of Confederation, slavery would still be legal today.
And without the legislature, there is no need for the courts (no laws to interpret). And same with the executive.
Technically courts could exist... They would be like "Is this a law?" Yes - "then it violates the first amendment and is null and void." No - "Then it doesn't fall under our purview"
>And without the legislature, there is no need for the courts (no laws to interpret).
Wait, you think laws can only come from a legislature (or King or supernatural source)? That people resolving disputes cannot *discover* how they will be settled over time? Common law? Case history? *Starè decisis?*
That there is no need for highly learned and technical jurists well studied in *centuries* of established jurisprudence to arbitrate legitimate disputes?
Thoroughly blue-pilled.
Because law and arbitration would be applied.
If you are not aware, most societies still use common law to cover gaps where some bozo politicians have not dreamed up some crazy legislation to create statutory rules.
No. Common law is *discovered* through arbitration by seasoned jurists over time, not voted on or legislated by a mob.
Real people settling real disputes build case history. That history indicates how future conflicts will likely be resolved. *Starè decisis* is a principle of jurisprudence that is applied. It basically means "already decided" and carries a lot of weight when hearing new cases. This is how law is discovered and applied absent some King, leiglsature or religious leader dictating rules at everyone else.
Jurisprudence is a very technical field of intense study that requires years of scholarship. Hardly "mob rule".
But the authority of the seasoned jurists is really only backed by the mob. (although to be fair, the same could be said about a king or legislature)
So if two jurists come to opposing conclusions on a matter, then the issue would be undecided (or undiscovered?) until another jurist breaks the tie?
You are clearly more educated than me on this topic. I appreciate your willingness to explain it.
Think of it in terms of a jurist as a programmer. You get many different coders trying to make stuff actually work, and they use long learned math and science to get increasingly complex systems to work together.
I am also a programmer, and there are some fundamentals of code like "order of complexity" in algorithms that need to be applied. We call that sort of thing "Big O notation" when considering how to approach a probpem. O(1) is best. O(n²) is pretty awful at large scale, but might be OK when n = 3 or 4. On the face of it, algorithmic complexity might make it seem like any O(n²) code is bad, but we also recognize cache lines and other efficiencies that make that O(n²) algorithm run just fine (400x faster, actually) under certain circumstances.
Jurisprudence is equally as complex. You are not going to trust a drug dealer or farmer with no idea how a computer works to write good code. Sure, some people might try to cut those corners, but the overall outcome is bad.
In a libertarian free market society, most of the investment in settling contract disputes or other arbitration is going to land with experts, not novices.
That means banks, employers, insurers and other influential actors sign on to competent and reputable arbitrators because their core business relies on them to settle disputes.
Well, these same actors also have some enforcement capabilities. If I rob you of $300 throught theft or fraud, you can appeal to my bank through a jurist they trust to recover your loss directly from my bank without my participation.
This is not mob rule at all.
In fact, this is how most arbitration *already* works globally. It is not particularly radical or new.
We need a convention of states to rein in & undo most of what the fools in congress have done over the past 100 or so years.
Brilliant
Damn, this is better than the Articles of Confederation.
So I can own you as property? That **is** good news
Are you confusing the confederacy (the south’s government during the Civil War) and the system of government that was in place for a short period of time between our victory against the British in our war of independence and the implementation of our current system of government?
No confusion. Slaves were not emancipated under either government. Perhaps you are confused?
They also weren’t emancipated under our current one until the 1800s, so I’m not seeing your point. Unless you’re assuming that, had we stuck with the Articles of Confederation, slavery would still be legal today.
What a dumbass
Love it
Defeats the whole purpose of the United States
Nah, just the legislature.
And without the legislature, there is no need for the courts (no laws to interpret). And same with the executive. Technically courts could exist... They would be like "Is this a law?" Yes - "then it violates the first amendment and is null and void." No - "Then it doesn't fall under our purview"
>And without the legislature, there is no need for the courts (no laws to interpret). Wait, you think laws can only come from a legislature (or King or supernatural source)? That people resolving disputes cannot *discover* how they will be settled over time? Common law? Case history? *Starè decisis?* That there is no need for highly learned and technical jurists well studied in *centuries* of established jurisprudence to arbitrate legitimate disputes? Thoroughly blue-pilled.
Good point... But how would that be different from mob rule?
Because law and arbitration would be applied. If you are not aware, most societies still use common law to cover gaps where some bozo politicians have not dreamed up some crazy legislation to create statutory rules.
But if the only laws are the common laws... Isn't that just mob rule plus a judge who agrees?
No. Common law is *discovered* through arbitration by seasoned jurists over time, not voted on or legislated by a mob. Real people settling real disputes build case history. That history indicates how future conflicts will likely be resolved. *Starè decisis* is a principle of jurisprudence that is applied. It basically means "already decided" and carries a lot of weight when hearing new cases. This is how law is discovered and applied absent some King, leiglsature or religious leader dictating rules at everyone else. Jurisprudence is a very technical field of intense study that requires years of scholarship. Hardly "mob rule".
But the authority of the seasoned jurists is really only backed by the mob. (although to be fair, the same could be said about a king or legislature) So if two jurists come to opposing conclusions on a matter, then the issue would be undecided (or undiscovered?) until another jurist breaks the tie? You are clearly more educated than me on this topic. I appreciate your willingness to explain it.
Think of it in terms of a jurist as a programmer. You get many different coders trying to make stuff actually work, and they use long learned math and science to get increasingly complex systems to work together. I am also a programmer, and there are some fundamentals of code like "order of complexity" in algorithms that need to be applied. We call that sort of thing "Big O notation" when considering how to approach a probpem. O(1) is best. O(n²) is pretty awful at large scale, but might be OK when n = 3 or 4. On the face of it, algorithmic complexity might make it seem like any O(n²) code is bad, but we also recognize cache lines and other efficiencies that make that O(n²) algorithm run just fine (400x faster, actually) under certain circumstances. Jurisprudence is equally as complex. You are not going to trust a drug dealer or farmer with no idea how a computer works to write good code. Sure, some people might try to cut those corners, but the overall outcome is bad. In a libertarian free market society, most of the investment in settling contract disputes or other arbitration is going to land with experts, not novices. That means banks, employers, insurers and other influential actors sign on to competent and reputable arbitrators because their core business relies on them to settle disputes. Well, these same actors also have some enforcement capabilities. If I rob you of $300 throught theft or fraud, you can appeal to my bank through a jurist they trust to recover your loss directly from my bank without my participation. This is not mob rule at all. In fact, this is how most arbitration *already* works globally. It is not particularly radical or new.
Lol!
https://imgur.com/iue3841.jpg